homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.173.169
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 193 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 193 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 > >     
Google Datacenters Watch 2006-03-28
g1smd




msg:769532
 10:14 pm on Mar 27, 2006 (gmt 0)

< continued from [webmasterworld.com...] >

In other BD indexes (like [66.249.93.104...] etc) I now see that some old Supplemental Results for pages and sites that no longer exist are disappearing from the search results.

I have waited years for this moment. We already had several false starts on this over the last few months. The pages were dropped, and then reappeared a day or two later.

Be gone for good this time!

[edited by: tedster at 5:27 am (utc) on Mar. 28, 2006]
[edit reason] split thread to create a new one [/edit]

 

Dayo_UK




msg:769592
 1:06 pm on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Reseller

I thought your site was fixed.

However, on that DC your homepage has gone on a phrase search for it.

reseller




msg:769593
 1:25 pm on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Dayo_UK

"Reseller
I thought your site was fixed.

However, on that DC your homepage has gone on a phrase search for it."

Exactly. And I find it very strange, because this is the first time I see that since last year, if I recall correctly.

Oh..well (:(

dmje




msg:769594
 6:02 pm on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

72.14.207.99 sure is doing a lot of fliping around. Just checked it with the following searchs:

site:domain.com - got 761 results, which is up from what it has been.

Got as far as 448 results before I got the "omitted results" prompt.

site:www.domain.com - Gave the exact same results

site:domain.com -inurl:www gave zero results, which is much better as it has been showing several hundred results, both a mix of true sups and other pages that are current and should not be sup.

I am far from an expert and not sure what all this means in the scheme of things, but thought I would share the changes that I saw.

g1smd




msg:769595
 6:20 pm on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

I have a Google search where most of the results are for pages that no longer exist or the whole site no longer exists. There should really only be one result returned.

For years, the search returns that one result and at least 20 supplemental results (for pages and sites that no longer exist). There are two slightly different versions of the supplemental list depending on which datacentre you use.

On the new 72.14.207.99 datacentre, the same search now returns 1 to 12 of about 40 000, and most of the 12 results are pages that I have not seen being returned for this query before, and are very "fuzzy" matches (the 64.233.185.104 DC had a similar results set the other day). Most of those 12 results are for supplemental pages that Google has known about for more than a year, but which never show up in results, and which all now have a cache date less than 2 weeks old.

The kicker is that when you click the "Repeat search with omitted results included" link, you then get ONE result (shown as "1 to 1 of about 15").

Now that is odd, but it does show that Google is capable of recognising what junk really needs to be thrown away. Hopefully an engineer can isolate that filter and deploy it on other datacentres...

reseller




msg:769596
 7:56 pm on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Unfriendly Datacenters ;-)

Hi Folks

I wish to point out 3 sets of DCs which I consider unfriendly to my site. My suggestion to the friends at GooglePlex is to burn those unfriendly DCs..just like that :-)

216.239.53.*** Show Canonical Problem within my site

216.239.57.*** Show Canonical Problem within my site

64.233.187.*** Keep showing DMOZ Title for my homepage

What about you? any unfriendly DCs of your site you wish to share, mentioning the reason?

Thanks.

g1smd




msg:769597
 8:02 pm on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

It seems like at this time there are at least seven "mini-Googles" out there all doing slightly different things....

steveb




msg:769598
 9:49 pm on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

Wouldn't it be cool if one of those seven actually showed consistent, appropriate handling of Internet web sites and web searches?

A guy can dream...

textex




msg:769599
 9:52 pm on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)

My site is coming out of supplemental hell....however when I search 'more from site', my homepage is listed fifth, not first. Does this mean that my index is still not fully recovered?

reseller




msg:769600
 5:16 am on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

Thanks To Google Crawl-Indexing Team

Good morning Folks

I have nemtioned in my previous post msg#:66 of this thread, 2 DCs which were showing canonical problem within my site.

216.239.53.***

216.239.57.***

It seems that the friends at Google Crawl-Indexing Team had read my post and corrected the canonical problem of my site on those two DCs while I was in bed ;-)

And for that..allow me to start this wonderful morning with my famous song...

Oh Google.. You Are Simply The Best, Better Than All The Rest :-)

Dayo_UK




msg:769601
 6:45 am on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>Wouldn't it be cool if one of those seven actually showed consistent, appropriate handling of Internet web sites and web searches?

You would have thought even by accident Google might get one of them right.

But nope - total and utter mess.

Hmmz - I think I will do a check for my site again on a "www.domain.com" phrase check:-

Spam spam spam spam spam spam spam - oh there is an internal page in position 750.

Still no improvements.

reseller




msg:769602
 7:00 am on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

Good morning Dayo_UK

Maybe you should start a new campaign just like that of last year :-)

Listen Google - I will say this only another 100 times. The canonical url for my site is the homepage with the www - I have done the 301 - this is the page with the most backlinks - it is the page that should rank for the company name search. Etc."

Dayo_UK




msg:769603
 7:18 am on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

Reseller.

I would probably have to start at number 1000000000000000000000000000000000 and count down to give Google any chance :)

reseller




msg:769604
 7:21 am on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

Today's Gorgeous DC Set

Hi Folks

Relax..fetch your Danish brand cappuccino and study your site(s) on today's DC set. Isn't she lovely ;-)

[64.233.185.99...]
[64.233.185.104...]

Enjoy!

StriderUK




msg:769605
 8:36 am on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

Having just recovered from a bout of food poisoning, I will decline that offer and those DC's are horrendous (for me at least!)

petehall




msg:769606
 8:53 am on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

Google surely has to move forward with the inclusion of newer sites.

The only place I can see this on is 64.233.187.104.

g1smd




msg:769607
 12:50 pm on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> You would have thought even by accident Google might get one of them right. <<

On 72.14.207.99 with &filter=0 I see them get it completely right for the very first time in over two years.

Dayo_UK




msg:769608
 12:55 pm on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

g1smd

Yes, supplemental issues are much much better for the sites you monitor - I agree.

But Google has not been able to correctly determine root pages for lots of sites that went missing yet.

On that DC there are no ranking changes - just perhaps a knob that has turned the supplemental index off on some searches.

Whether the forthcoming PR update will cure this is anyones guess.

On one hand I think that as PR is supposed to be continually applied to the serps I cant see that making a difference.

On the other hand the exported PR might still have some impact on how the structure of a site (eg site:domain.com - domain.com is first, and in allinurls etc) is calculated.

I just wish they would get on with it.

ramachandra




msg:769609
 2:43 pm on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hello Reseller and Dayo_UK,

Currently my site is out of canonical issue and supplementals but seems to have some issues like some of the old pages still showing in index which are not existing (404) and ranking for my domainname which is still on 5th page. I think if Google rectifies this problem then I think site will rank better.

Munster




msg:769610
 3:19 pm on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

Something else wierd happening now, Doing a UK only search in google.co.uk is bringing up mainly US sites, I have never seen that before.

forzatio




msg:769611
 7:36 pm on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

64.233.179.99

64.233.179.104

64.233.179.107

These datacenters show different serps than all other datacenters on the mcdar tool.
even other serps than
64.233.187.104

kamikaze Optimizer




msg:769612
 10:53 pm on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)

Munster: Funny you should say that, I see just the same here in the USA:

I have said this before, I say it again:

What I have been noticing is far too much weight being given to .co.uk and .ca URL's in the USA serps.

So a common search would produce:

keyword.com (A valuable site to USA searchers)
keyword.co.uk (Of no value in the USA)
keyword.ca (Of no value in the USA)

I would expect this on google.co.uk and google.ca, but not on Google.com.

It is making a mess of the serps with valuable sites that were in the top five results dropping down or off the page.

Miop




msg:769613
 2:06 am on Apr 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

301 redirect from non-www to www finally takes place for my site (6 months wait).
Thank you Google.

Whitey




msg:769614
 2:37 am on Apr 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

For anyone that's noticed/interested in the reporting of our sites this is our 3rd day of movement in cached pages on :

64.233.179.99
64.233.179.104
64.233.179.107

-caches are now consistant
-no supps
-173k of pages up from 102k yesterday and still caching.
-99% of our site are new pages and receiving redirects from old pages.

Still early days, but at least things are happening consistantly now.

our results in the serps are still "tragic" [ again e.g for 1 keyword result we are No 90 for a previously stable No 1 result ] and for unique page content we are way down the serps.
just repeating - we have compounded problems with a previous robots.txt hack attack that knocked us out for 180 days

One thing - we have another bunch of sites that are not yet fully compliant [ weighty pages , too many links etc ] and these are not performing well in this update. It might be interesting to compare sites on your network that have been cleared up versus sites that need a bit of work [ please be kind to us Google - if you're reading this :) we were waiting to see how our tidied up sites performed first - before migrating the changes over ]

reseller




msg:769615
 5:55 am on Apr 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Matt Cutts Moves to Google NASA Office

Hi Folks

It seems that our good friend at GooglePlex Matt "Inigo" Cutts is leaving Google Search Quality Team and moving to a new Google office at NASA!

Here is what the Danish newspaper "Copenhagen Corner" wrote yesterday 31st March 2006:

Google-NASA partnership

As part of Google's plan to build up 1 million square feet of offices at NASA Ames Research Center near Mountain View, Calif., the two entities will cooperate on research projects such as large-scale data management, nanotechnology, massively distributed computing and the entrepreneurial space industry.
Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt has announced that Google-NASA office shall be headed by senior engineer Matt Cutts.

We wish Inigo good luck and God bless. So long Matt and thank you for friendship and support to the webmaster communities for many years.

reseller




msg:769616
 6:29 am on Apr 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Good morning Folks

Talking about odd behaviour. This set of DCs show different serps than the rest DCs for my test keyphrases related to online marketing & advertising.

[64.233.171.99...]
[64.233.171.104...]
[64.233.171.107...]
[64.233.171.147...]

Thoughts?

selomelo




msg:769617
 9:21 am on Apr 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Matt Cutts Moves to Google NASA Office

Reseller, I liked it. But my favorite is newly released Google Romance, the contextual dating sevice!

[google.com...]
[google.com...]

300m




msg:769618
 10:27 am on Apr 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Has anyone had any issues with multple domains 301'd to one domain? I seem to be having this problem on one of the sites I work on, but not others.

MLHmptn




msg:769619
 10:58 am on Apr 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

For those of you that are in a sandbox please check your site(s) on these two datacenters. I have quite a few sites that are appearing sandbox free on these two datacenters.


tedster




msg:769620
 4:37 pm on Apr 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

The two data centers are

64.233.187.99
64.233.187.104

Dayo_UK




msg:769621
 4:57 pm on Apr 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

MLHmptn

How old are those sites - The only site I launched after November time has suddenly lost rankings accross the DC.

reseller




msg:769622
 5:06 pm on Apr 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Dayo_UK

Do you see any canonical improvements on the 2 DCs tedster has just mentioned?

This 193 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 193 ( 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved